Assessing the Role of Local Institutions in Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable

Agriculture in Kenya

Presenter: Lutta Muhammad

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)Socio-economics & Biometrics Division

Kaptagat Road, Nairobi Kenya

Overview

• Kenya: Agriculture in Development

• Development and dissemination of agricultural technology

• The South West Kenya Case Study

• The Observations, lessons learnt and conclusion

• More than 40 – Cultural – Linguistic groupings

At a glance …

The Ministry of Agriculture lists more than 60 agricultural commodities in 6 major agro-ecological

zones (AEZs) accounting for 27% of the land

• Coastal lowland Tropics

• Semi-arid mid-lands

• Dry Transitional

• Moist Mid-altitude

• Moist Transitional

• Highland Tropics

High population Pressure on land

Low yields Poverty, disease

Unresponsive Institutional

arrangements

Inappropriate Farming

techniques

Knowledge, capital constraints

The major player in development of technology for agriculture and natural resource management is KARI (significant collaboration with IARCs)

• And to a lesser extent, – Universities and – The private sector

The Institute has 22 main research centres and 14 sub-centres located throughout the country

Cross-cutting non-research programmes nationally coordinated

• Foundation Seeds and Germplasm Conservation

• Agricultural Research and Investment Services (ARIS)

• Agricultural Technology and Information Responsive Initiative (ATIRI).

Research projects implemented over the 1990-2004 period

Recent research technologies innovations/varieties released by KARI

Varied and in many cases, low adoption rates remain a challenge

• Aspects of challenges represented by low adoption rates in the face of increasing pressure on land, declining productivity and increasing poverty

• And how these challenges might be addressed …

• The South West Kenya Case Study

South Western Kenya• Land area is 5,714 km2 • Alluvial valleys, steep slopes to the east, central plain,

steep slopes (e.g., Gembe and Gwasi hills) towards the lake shore.

• Mean annual rainfall 700-1800, in two seasons • Bantu and Nilotic linguistic and cultural group together

The causes include

• Main activities: fishing, livestock and crop farming dominate livelihoods

• Holdings average 3.4 ha

• Farming intensifying, erosion and falling productivity.

• Diets low in vitamins

• Health concerns especially among fishing & pastoralist communities

Efforts directed at improving livelihoods through use of better farm practices

• Liberalisation (1980-90s), rural development practitioners diversified: government co-ordinating

Main actors:

• HB-AEP

• CARE-Kenya (NGOs);

• DANIDA & MoA (government)

• BAT (private sector)

• In fact, 25 entities.

Premise:

• Adoption of valuable farm practices can be constrained by lack of – farmer organisation, – information, – complimentary inputs, – capital and – markets

Action:

• Through groups, village banks, activities like irrigation, soil conservation identified by farmers.

Interventions

• Development of appropriate grass-roots level organizational structures

• Information on appropriate land use practices• Suitable institutional arrangements to facilitate adoption of

improved practices • Agricultural technology (e.g., suitable varieties)• Complimentary technology (e.g., irrigation, oil presses

etc.).• Mobilization of resources needed for adoption of

appropriate land use practices through micro-finance.

Kitchen gardens Improved storage On Farm trials

Fruit trees Storage pest control Demo of improved Agr Prac

Manure management Proc. And utilization

Integ. pest management Micro Finance

Livestock production Community mobilization

Fodder establishment Group formation

Upgrading zebus Group training

Feeding dairy cows Savings mobilization

Loan approval, disbursement and recovery.

Observations on interventions and farmer response

• Study was conducted in the area (August 2000)

• Objectives: assess impact of irrigation and construction of terraces and analyze factors influencing this adoption

• Methods: Survey of 298 households, extraction of descriptive statistics and regression analysis

The main outcomes

• Some 78%of the households were saving with the VBs. Some had obtained loans for off-farm business, crop production, livestock, general farm and household.

• The length of terraces was 77 m/farm

• Grain production had increased by 12%

• Of the three systems of irrigation on offer, the bucket technique was the most popular.

• Adoption rates for kitchen gardens, raised seed beds and double dug seed beds stood at 54%, 28% and 21% respectively.

Factors influencing the terracing, grain production and irrigation and vegetable gardens

• Terracing: Crop acreage (negative) and borrowing from the VB (positive)

• Grain production: Terracing and use of organic fertilizer

• Irrigation: Security of land tenure and gender of household head

• Irrigation variable positive and significant for kitchen gardens, raised and double dug seed beds

• For adoption of the latter, the borrowing, irrigation, gender of household head and, intensity of participation variables were significant.

Dependent variable

Variables in the Regression Equation Coefficients

S.E. Sig. Aymptotic t ratio

Length of terraces

Constant 0.010 1.241 0.994

0.008

Intensity of participation at group meetings

0.181 0.215 0.399

0.842

Gender of household head 0.591 0.533 0.267

1.109

Permanency of land tenure -0.345 0.291 0.237

-1.186

Borrowing from Village Bank 0.037 0.588 0.950

0.063

Bucket irrigation

Constant 0.010 1.241 0.994

0.008

Intensity of participation at group meetings

0.181 0.215 0.399

1.188

Gender of household head 0.591 0.533 0.267

0.902

Permanency of land tenure -0.345 0.291 0.237

-0.843

Borrowing from Village Bank 0.037 0.588 0.950

0.063

Dependent variable

Variables in the Regression Equation Coefficients

S.E. Sig. Aymptotic t ratio

Double dug beds

Constant -2.833 1.491 0.057

-1.900

Borrowing from Village Bank -1.410 0.735 0.055

-1.918

If irrigation adopted 1.178 0.703 0.094

1.676

Gender of household head 1.139 0.752 0.130

1.515

Intensity of participation at group meetings

0.246 0.311 0.430

0.791

Grain production

Constant -12.565 585.99

0.983

-0.0210

Borrowing from Village Bank 31.232 240.58

0.898

0.1300

Crop land size (ha) -10.206 115.85

0.930

-0.0880

Gender of household head -50.685 236.49

0.832

-0.2140

Terrace length (m/ha) 2.200 0.969 0.031

2.2700

 Adoption of organic fertilizers 207.415 226.7

40.36

80.9150

The lessons and conclusion

• Adoption rates we observed are expected to rise

• But smallholders are clearly proceeding with caution, terraces first, then bucket and then the aprotec pump

• The VB system needs to be strengthened and should form a basis for for a more equitable and efficient harnessing of the water resources in this river system

• Need for further research to quantify our generalisations is indicated

Thank you all